In rating judicial candidates, the American Bar Association is supposed to assess nominees` professional competence and integrity, not their politics. If the ABA had a solid record of meeting that standard, its assessment of Judge Clarence Thomas would be disappointing.
While the bar panel held Thomas ”qualified” to sit on the Supreme Court, two of its 15 members found him ”unqualified” and another abstained. Most candidates confirmed for the high court are unanimously rated
”qualified” or ”well qualified.”
Given the ABA`s reputation for allowing ideology to influence ratings, however, the divided pronouncement on Thomas is no cause for concern. In fact, the Bork fiasco in 1987 shredded the association`s claim to impartiality.
Robert Bork, you remember, was Ronald Reagan`s nominee for the court, rejected by the Senate after ferocious lobbying from liberal interest groups. That campaign of distortion and vilification . . . drowned out the fact that Bork was widely recognized as one of the most distinguished jurists in the country. . . .
When Bork was considered for the appeals court in 1982, the ABA unanimously gave him its top rating. Five years later, four members of the panel preposterously claimed he was ”not qualified.”
Clarence Thomas appears to have suffered a similar, mysterious erosion of experience in the eyes of the ABA. In 1989, when he too was confirmed for the appeals court, the panel`s ”qualified” rating was unanimous.
Clearly no one should set great store by the judgments of the lawyers`
trade association. . . . As a new round of confirmation hearings nears, it is not Thomas` qualifications that are in doubt but how hard his political opponents are prepared to fight to defeat a conservative president`s nominee.
